Reasons to despise " god " ( in the almost zero possibility of he/she/its existence )

[Kyuuketsuki]

If god exists and as a result "god dun it" becomes an acceptable explanation then there is no longer any need to explain the observable universe, no need to advance technically or socially and we might as well just give up and die.

Kyu

[bozo]

If god exists and as a result "god dun it" becomes an acceptable explanation then there is no longer any need to explain the observable universe, no need to advance technically or socially and we might as well just give up and die.

Kyu

Kyu, I'm probably being dimmer than usual but I don't get your point?
Are you agreeing or not with me?

---

Here's an interesting comparison: I've never really liked football or rather I don't understand how people get so passionate about it and now having read this I can see it's responsible for some evil:

' Sick soccer fans have been plaguing Spurs manager Harry Redknapp with vile phone calls- saying they hope he and his family will be killed in a car crash.'- The Sun 28th November (not my paper I hasten to add).

These sicko retards are displaying the same 'hatred' and bigotry in relation to something they feel passionately about, although in this case for a non religious/political cause.

Of course it's not the football to blame, but rather people's reactions driven by emotion.

Bozo, you know fine well 'god' has nothing to do with Bush and Blair's going into Iraq. They have used Him to prop up or validate their accountability. The things that drive men like them are power and money.

CR, does your final para not prove my point?

[LukeMC]

Where the religious president/prime minister might let religion influence his/her politics, and might have illogical biases on topical issues, the atheist president/prime minister runs no risk of supernatural influences being staged to justify wrongdoings.

The atheist is accountable. The atheist doesn't justify his/her actions from ancient texts or telopathic messages.

If God exists and is wonderfully nice and charming, a religious leader may still wrongly use God to push political campaigns. An atheist leader does not.

I'm not saying that God is/isn't a bad influence, only that politics is safer without "him".

[bozo]

Where the religious president/prime minister might let religion influence his/her politics, and might have illogical biases on topical issues, the atheist president/prime minister runs no risk of supernatural influences being staged to justify wrongdoings.

The atheist is accountable. The atheist doesn't justify his/her actions from ancient texts or telopathic messages.

If God exists and is wonderfully nice and charming, a religious leader may still wrongly use God to push political campaigns. An atheist leader does not.

I'm not saying that God is/isn't a bad influence, only that politics is safer without "him".

LukeMC, is your conclusion an example of sitting on the fence or a reluctance to agree with my premise ( even though you'd like to )?

[LukeMC]

The latter.
I want to say that he's an awful influence. But maybe Bush is just a bad interpreter.

The reason I can't go into this very well is that it would go against my idea that God isn't an influence at all, as I still don't see how free will can exist next to God's omnipotence, omniscience, his infallible plan, etc (how can you have a choice when your actions are predetermined?). So to imply that God influenced Bush is to imply that God doesn't have his superpowers previously listed (if Bush is capable of making his own independent choice and God is only guiding him, then God isn't omniscient because he doesn't know what choice Bush will make).

For those reasons, I'd say the Iraq war was God's will. God didn't influence the war, he planned it.

But free will, omniscience, etc aren't my strongest points. I'd like to see a theist tear them to pieces so I know what I can/can't use anymore.

[Edwardo Piet]

Daystar,read my post again. I say God is a bad influence. This thing that probably doesn't exist still manages to have influence over stupid politicians, or more accurately, politicians infected with religious faith.
Using the god card affords them some ease of conscience when they give the orders that result in death and destruction on a massive scale.

Deus Vult! Latin God wills it. The rallying cry of the first crusade. To say that God is a bad influence implies that God in some bad way influenced them and that isn't true. If you had said King David was a bad influence because he once went to war without God having instructed to him to do so - that would have been accurate. David was punished for that by God and so God was not influential to Bush or Blair.

Daystar, try telling Bush and Blair.

Great point. Daystar can't possibly know "God" anymore than Bush or Blair. It wouldn't matter how inspired or intelligent you are. Its impossible. Because there's nothing to know. You cannot understand who's sitting in a seat when the seats empty. When no one's sittings there. Neither physically or spiritually sitting there. How could Daystar possibly know anymore about "God" than Bush or Blair? Bush and/or Blair's opinion of what God is, is just as valid Daystar's. Because God is unknowable. That's the whole point. Its just pointless speculation. God is unknowable.
Why is unknowable? Because its impossible to know about something that there is no evidence of.
And will always be that way since he doesn't exist. No evidence of, extremely complex, extremely improbable, had to be more fine-tuned than the universe itself. He just can't exist. Almost certainly. As certain as you can be about anything. Without being dogmatic, without having 100% certainty.

[bozo]

The latter.
I want to say that he's an awful influence. But maybe Bush is just a bad interpreter.

The reason I can't go into this very well is that it would go against my idea that God isn't an influence at all, as I still don't see how free will can exist next to God's omnipotence, omniscience, his infallible plan, etc (how can you have a choice when your actions are predetermined?). So to imply that God influenced Bush is to imply that God doesn't have his superpowers previously listed (if Bush is capable of making his own independent choice and God is only guiding him, then God isn't omniscient because he doesn't know what choice Bush will make).

For those reasons, I'd say the Iraq war was God's will. God didn't influence the war, he planned it.

But free will, omniscience, etc aren't my strongest points. I'd like to see a theist tear them to pieces so I know what I can/can't use anymore.

LukeMC, glad it's the latter! I am convinced of the probability that god doesn't exist. However, it frustrates me intensely that a non-being can be such a bad influence, in the sense that politicians of the worst kind call on this superstition to validate their actions. I dread the nuclear button being pushed because " god " or " allah " or whatever gave the word.

[Kyuuketsuki]

If god exists and as a result "god dun it" becomes an acceptable explanation then there is no longer any need to explain the observable universe, no need to advance technically or socially and we might as well just give up and die.

Kyu, I'm probably being dimmer than usual but I don't get your point?
Are you agreeing or not with me?

I thought you were asking for reasons to despise "god", that was mine

Kyu

[CoxRox]

This imaginary, man made concept of 'God' or 'gods', causes a 'madness' in people and it appears this evolutionary flaw has taken on a 'life' of its own. Why can something that isn't even real have so much far reaching power and influence? Why are so many hearts and minds 'tuned into' this invisible being? The 'evil' done by corruption of power and money would surely still be done, with or without God, but their combination seems to produce a toxic mixture that is liable to explode at any time.....

[Edwardo Piet]

This imaginary, man made concept of 'God' or 'gods', causes a 'madness' in people and it appears this evolutionary flaw has taken on a 'life' of its own. Why can something that isn't even real have so much far reaching power and influence? Why are so many hearts and minds 'tuned into' this invisible being? The 'evil' done by corruption of power and money would surely still be done, with or without God, but their combination seems to produce a toxic mixture that is liable to explode at any time.....

So you believe in Zeus just because in the past so many believed it?
Why? Because this is how things are. People have evolved and there are flaws. One of these flaws is that they have this delusion. It is suggested that we see patterns that aren't actually there. That we prefer ANY theory to NO theory. That we prefer a conspiracy theory over no theory at all. This is something that Christopher Hitchens has said.
Its counter-intuitive to realize that no theory is better than a bad theory. But it can be realized.
One idea, is the way we think as humans. The way we have had to learn to react to things since, stone age times if you were. And probably before that.
When you hear a noise its common to think "who's there?". Not "what's there?". But who's there. So not only do we see patterns that aren't there. But this might explain why we interpret them as being alive, as being a being. As being like us. This is a suggestion by Dan Dennett.
And Richard Dawkins has suggested that its an evolutionary by-product. That its a misfiring. Just as moths aren't being suicidal when they kill themselves by flying into lamps. That's because they've evolved to fly that way and then when they see lamps they act as if its another sun or moon and it confuses them.
So for instance, its good for a child to trust their parents. Because there's no time in the stone age to not do obey their parents when they're told to not go so close to the cliff edge for example.
But then this then could indeed result in having the misfiring evolutionary-by product of believing in a lot of stuff that isn't true. Then when those kids grow up, they pass it onto THEIR children. And it just grows and grows. With some setbacks maybe but grows nonetheless. As it has done anyway.
After all, a lot of believers did have their "faith" imposed on them when they were children. Isn't this a Jesuit credo after all "Give me the child for the first 7 years and I'll give you the man".